Date: 12-27-2013

Case Style: Paul Tate v. Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2012-4343

Judge: Mary Fitzgeradl

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Frank W. Frasier, James E. Frasier and Sara K. Bryning

Defendant's Attorney: Randall James Snapp

Description: Paul Tate sued Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC on a wrongful termination theory claiming:

I

Plaintiff, Paul Tate, is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

II

Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company organized and existing under laws of the State of Oklahoma licensed to do business throughout the State.

III

For some time prior to the 2nd day of November, 2009, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. Prior to the 2nd day of November, 2009, Plaintiff suffered an on the job injury for which he pursued his rights under Oklahoma’s Worker’s Compensation laws. In retaliation for such pursuit, Defendant discharged Plaintiff on or about the 2nd day of November, 2009, in violation of 85 O.S. § 5.

V

As a result of the discharge, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer lost earnings, employment benefits, damages from mental and emotional distress and other damages.

V

The actions of the Defendantwere willful, wanton, reckless and Defendant should be punished therefore and made an example to others.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant for actual damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and punitive damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). In addition, Plaintiff prays for any interest, cost, reinstatement and other such and further relief to which he is deemed entitled.


Defendant, Airflow Cooling Technologies, LLC, appeared and answered as follows:

1. Airflo does not have sufficient information and knowledge to form a.belieft to the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Petition, and therefore denies the same and. demands strict proof thereof.

2. Airflo admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Petition.

3. Airflo denies that Defendant was discharged in retaliation for pursuing his rights under the Oklahoma Workers Compensation laws or that his termination violated Title 85, Okla. Stat. § 5. Airflo admits the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Petition.

4. Airflo denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition.

5. Airflo denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Petition.

Further answering, Defendant alleges the following affirmative defenses:

6. Plaintiff’s Petition and the relief sought therein is barred to the extent Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

7. The conduct of the Defendant was at all times performed in good faith and in compliance with all applicable laws.

8. Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons.

9. Plaintiffs claim for damages is barred, or should be limited, to the extent Plaintiff has failed to reasonably mitigate his damages.

10. Plaintiff has not suffered any damages as a result of any conduct of the Defendant or as a result of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Petition.

11. Plaintiffs Petition does not state a viable Oklahoma common law cause of action for wrongful termination.

12. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages as a result of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Petition. In the alternative, if the trier of fact determines that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages, such damages should be limited to no more than the amount of actual damages suffered by Plaintiff herein. Defendant, Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC, reserves the right to plead additional affirmative defenses and to amend this answer as discovery proceeds in this case.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the Defendant prays as follows:

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of his causes of action and prayer for relief

2. That Plaintiffs Petition for Damages be dismissed in its entirety;

3. That judgment be entered in favor of the Defendant, Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC;

4. That the Defendant, Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC recover all costs, reasonable attorney fees and other expenses incurred in the defense of this action; and

5. That the Defendant, Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC, be awarded such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, which this Court deems to be just and proper.

Outcome: COMES NOW, the parties to this action, and hereby dismiss with prejudice to the re-filing thereof, all of their claims asserted in this case. Each party will bear his and/or its own costs and attorney’s fees incurred in this lawsuit.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: